Good villains

[Kingmaker]

No, what we've learned is that an idiot made a pointless and baseless assertion, refused to back it up, and resorted to bluster and insults when called on his bullshit. Truly an intellectual giant. Well done.

[Formless]

I'm sorry, but who is the one not backing up their arguments? That's right, you. I've given examples, I've stated the origins of the term and why that's relevant to the examples, and still you outright claim I'm redefining the term for no reason... WHEN I'VE STATED FOUR OF THEM.

Again, you are an illiterate twit in more ways than one. But please, keep congratulating yourself, it makes your arguments look so mature.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Well, reading through that a few times, I think I've managed to dig out some actual content from the usual, adorable frothing formlessrage (You might want to work on that sweety, while it's cute that all it takes is the slightest of pokes to set you off the deep end, it also makes you really predictable).

The problem is that there are two distinct definitions of Deus Ex Machina, the first being the asspull contrivance to resolve a conflict, the second being the literal gods coming in to fix things. There is overlap between the definitions, but they can also be contradictory. The Star Trek example only fits the second definition and directly contradicts the first, for instance. Now I can admit I was restricting myself to the less literal definition that is used far more commonly in literature and theatre, but then again I also made it pretty clear that was the definition I was using right from the start. You, on the other hand, are leaping back and forth between both forms of Deus Ex Machina in your examples, clinging to whichever one suits your purposes at the moment even if the application of one directly contradicts the application of another. Now it might not be intentional, just an overlooked fuck up in your spastic rage, but you can see how it can lead to confusion, right?

As far as trying to hammer things into narrowly defined categories goes, you seem to have this really awful case of projection going on. Last I checked, you were the one trying to throw out multiple examples and claiming they were all Deus Ex Machinas, while I was showing how they didn't fit that definition, at least not the one we were using (though apparently we weren't clear enough on exactly which definition we were using, despite explicitly posting it). Now I could go your route and claim you're a shit-stained mental reject who would better the world by getting herpes and being run down with a combine harvester while your parents happily cheer the erasure of their unfortunate mistake from the worldfuckshitcuntassholefucktardshitheadboy... but I'm not you. I'll just offer the friendly advise to take a few steps back, cool off the e-rage a little and try to think about why you feel compelled to throw such a shitfit.

War of the Worlds... I don't really give a shit what Stark says. In the end, it does match the first definition of a Deus Ex Machina. Good? Bad? I'm with the latter, highly advanced, imperialistic aliens that at the same time have no understanding of microbiology and biohazards smacks of contrivance and plot-driven stupidity. It worked in the 20's simply because we didn't know better at the time, it doesn't work now, at least claiming it was human diseases and the aliens' complete lack of basic medical hygiene. Does being against that sort of plot-driven stupidity make me a fatty-nerd? Well I suppose I'll just have to find some way to live with that label and try to survive under the scouring rays of Stark's disapproval.

Personally I like to make up my own explanation for it: The Narrator in WotW is flat out wrong, it wasn't human diseases that killed off the aliens. Instead they already had their own disease before they came here, and the entire invasion was their desperate attempt to find or research some cure on Earth before it killed them all off... and they simply failed at it. In this case there could be some very effective debate on both sides of the coin whether or not this is a Deus Ex Machina. On the one hand, it does seem to come out of nowhere, on the other it forms the aliens' entire motivation and, while an unexpected conflict resolution from the protagonists' point of view, it is anything but 'contrived'. Hell, I'd love to see a version of WotW done from the aliens' point of view, watching their own kind sicken and die, running out of hope even as they fuck humanity over as humanity isn't their enemy, the disease inside them is, and the monkeys are simply in the way of their cure.

I'm looking over the plot summary for Tapestry and, I will admit, that seems to a topic which could be debated by people far more qualified than any of us. On the one hand, it does seem to be the literal definition of Deus Ex Machina, on the other hand it could be claimed that the main conflict isn't Picard's stab-wound, but rather the choices he made in life, his own personality, and whether or not he was comfortable with himself as a person. The life-threatening situation was merely the catalyst for all this to take place. Therefore was the conflict literally resolved by Q stepping in and using his godlike powers to save his life, or was it resolved by Picard's decisions and re-affirmation of his drives and passions?

[Samuel]

War of the Worlds... I don't really give a shit what Stark says. In the end, it does match the first definition of a Deus Ex Machina. Good? Bad? I'm with the latter, highly advanced, imperialistic aliens that at the same time have no understanding of microbiology and biohazards smacks of contrivance and plot-driven stupidity. It worked in the 20's simply because we didn't know better at the time, it doesn't work now, at least claiming it was human diseases and the aliens' complete lack of basic medical hygiene. Does being against that sort of plot-driven stupidity make me a fatty-nerd? Well I suppose I'll just have to find some way to live with that label and try to survive under the scouring rays of Stark's disapproval.

It isn't contrivence. The Martians are old and from a dying world. It is explicitly stated that they have altered their bodies to the point where they consider changing form on the same level we consider changing clothes. They probably eliminated germs in the past and forgot about. I'm pretty sure that in the times Wells was writing people where throwing that around in science fiction.

[Formless]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Have notes out, Kingmaker? You might learn something.

I can understand the idea that there might be two different, valid definitions at work (the literal Gods descend vs Writer's Fiat)... but that's the reason I'm switching between the two. To see what underlying idea or effect on the plot connects them. This may mean certain classic examples of Deus Ex Machina have to be reconsidered, and others brought into the fold. I'm fine with that. Are you?

Go back a little. I was never thinking of LotR when I wrote this despite Kingmaker bringing it up. Aragorn recruiting the army of the undead? Not a DEM, I agree. It does not magically resolve the plot, nor is it really a god (...who magically resolves the plot. See below). The Eagles coming to save Frodo and his gardener from Mount Doom? Maybe... but then again, you guys said a DEM cannot be foreshadowed ahead of time, yet the giant Eagles were present in The Hobbit, and (in the movies at least-- I have not read the books) in The Fellowship of the Rings they are summoned by Gandalf to save him from Sauroman's tower. So apparently a DEM cannot be foreshadowed unless it is?

Also, like with the healing of Picard in Tapestry, the main conflict isn't getting off Mount Doom. Its getting to Mount Doom without being corrupted by the Ring, captured by the forces of darkness, eaten by giant spiders, etc..

What I see is that in one definition, an obstacle (normally the most important obstacle the characters face but that's not apparently necessary) is resolved in a manner that came out of left field but may or may not make sense (the Eagles come out of nowhere, but the real plot hole is why they were only used at certain times and not to get to Mordor in the first place). In the other, we have some kind of plot device that just works, no explanation, and can do whatever the plot needs it to do. This is the more general idea I wanted to get at with the whole "summon the gods" thing; Q was conveniently the example most similar to the original definition, but there are others. An engineer that always seems to have a technobabble solution hidden up his ass for any and all scientific problems would also seem to qualify, agreed? Or another one would be if a superhero (Batman, Superman, insert-you-favorite-example-here) just happens to always have the right superpower or tool for the job, no matter how improbable it would be.

Or, to talk about a literal device, if the hero hears about the One Thing That Can Defeat The Villain and promptly goes on a quest to find and use it. The One Ring could arguably be an example, though it is omnipresent throughout the story and we do sort of get an explanation for why its important-- it holds Sauron's soul (or something). A somewhat less tangible device would be any kind of prophecy, like in Harry Potter (which also has the villain's ignorance of Wand Lore do him in. Repeatedly), which allows not only the hero to win in the end, but also frequently ensures it has to be this specific hero. See also: Anikan Skywalker/Darth Vader.

Maybe I've not adequately articulated what I think connects them. What I see in literature and drama is that both forms of DEM tie up loose ends in a manner such that the writer can get the story over with or gloss over certain consequences, and do so in a very convenient way. The better ones (that is, the ones that people seem to agree do not automatically ruin the story) appear to be logical but sudden (War of the Worlds), or rely on SOD and careful placement early on; and a possible third usage where the things it ties up are of secondary importance to the story anyway (Picard's life being saved could arguably be this, since the main themes were about his choices in life-- though its also a constant reminder in the episode of where those choices got him, so...).

Are we on the same page, at least?

P.S. the "Formless Rage" thing is mostly an exaggeration for this website, in anticipation that most people here have hairpin triggers on their flamethrowers as well. I can do a less invective laden debate/discussion, if you are willing to cut down the insults yourself. (doing fairly fine on that account right now)

[Stark]

War of the Worlds... I don't really give a shit what Stark says. In the end, it does match the first definition of a Deus Ex Machina. Good? Bad? I'm with the latter, highly advanced, imperialistic aliens that at the same time have no understanding of microbiology and biohazards smacks of contrivance and plot-driven stupidity. It worked in the 20's simply because we didn't know better at the time, it doesn't work now, at least claiming it was human diseases and the aliens' complete lack of basic medical hygiene. Does being against that sort of plot-driven stupidity make me a fatty-nerd? Well I suppose I'll just have to find some way to live with that label and try to survive under the scouring rays of Stark's disapproval.

It was the 19th century, dude. While he was banging on about his pacific attitudes, Wells made up chemical warfare. Shame on him.

Saying something in a work was ok at the time, but crap now, is fine (because it sure is, given how we see space travel now), but retro-actively declaring it a cop-out ending when it wasn't at the time, or arguably to the author? That's just modern audiences saying 'that's ignorant and hackneyed', which pretty much makes all pre 1950s science fiction DEM-based simply by popular consensus. I don't think that makes sense when talking about a work of literature - it's certainly a surprising end, even if its foreshadowed, and whether or not it serves the theme is arguably not relevant to whether or not it's (pejorative) DEM.

And really, when we're expressly shown aliens pulling blood out of guys and injecting it straight into themselves, there's really only the hope of off-screen medical nanomachines saving them from death. I mean, the idea of completely separate biology wasn't considered either, because Mars was just a pretty arid kind of place at the time. Being guys from another country/planet with better technology doesn't mean you're smart, and plenty of colonies from Europe died out due to simple shit like disease or starvation. Heaps of fiction have embellished around the motives of the aliens (from LoXG to a videogame) but from the perspective of the aboriginal victims of colonialism, the invaders are inscrutable.

What about all the fantasy where Tough Man saves Wizened Crone who then kills Villain with supermagic? It's cheap, but it's thematically sound and generally foreshadowed or part of the 'spectacle' of early fantasy. You could, however, call this a (pejorative) DEM because it's sudden and might be seen as a cop out. I think it's important to be distinct between finales that are crap, cheap, rushed, insensible or whatever, and the specific definition of the DEM, which is only a particular type of shit finale. Heaps of people don't like the finale to WOTW (even though it's a requirement to the narrative structure and the political polemic), but this isn't LITWIKI or something.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Regarding the OP: IMO, what makes a good villain is that the villain entertains, either through being a deep, complex character with believable motivations or being just so utterly over the top that it becomes hilarious. See Xykon from OotS for an example of the latter. Funny, charming, easily distracted... and utterly depraved, openly stating that morals and standards are for pussies.

A good villain should be threatening, be it through personal power or political clout, the ability to have an army of expendable minions go and eliminate anything threatening.

An example of a villain with motivation for what he's doing would be Ishamael/Moridin from the Wheel of Time series. Without going into spoiler territory, he has given rational explanations for why he is siding with an evil, omnicidal deity.

The Thing, as previously brought up, is a good example of an enjoyable antagonist and even villain. We see many examples demonstrating that it is capable of being very intelligent, often forming complex plans and demonstrating skill in espionage and infiltration. And it has very believable motivation. It wants to reproduce and live on, just like almost every other life from on the planet.

[Stark]

The Thing is a good antagonist because it shapes the characters and they explore it. It's easy to imagine the same 'thing' in a generic horror film being very bad.

[CaptHawkeye]

Like the prequel that just came out?

[Patrick Degan]

Two really good cinematic villains feature in the original Planet Of The Apes movie series, and both sharing a similar motivation: Dr. Zaius and Dr. Otto Hasslein. Both are confronted by figures who they recognise as direct threats to their worlds and act accordingly to save the future, as it appears to them.

[Big Orange]

Having rewatched the first season of Farscape on DVD in the past couple of months I would say that Crais and Scorpius are interesting, mostly competent multidimensional antagonists who do evil deeds, but have convincing motivations for their crimes (which doesn't exonorate them but doesn't make them arbitrary villains either). Crais is clearly the more hot headed, impulsive, and passionate of the two (and fixated on small personal goals), while Scorpius is in comparison more colder and calculating (and having a much wider view).

The better arbitary (ie. almost random nutty) villains from my perspective in recent years are certainly Heather Ledger's Joker and even Derek Jacobi/John Simm's Master.

[Elfdart]

On top of this, I tend to feel the most convincing villains are the ones that don't think they're wrong or evil. Many of the world's most vicious people went down believing they were the good guys in their own story.

There are also quite a few Dick Cheney types who revel in being evil.

A villain does not have to be malicious or butchering people. A good villain has to be a credible threat to the heroes.

Everything else is secondary.

What's your opinion if the villain of the story is incompetent or totally unable to harm the protagonist, and instead the story does something like make the hero(es) the villain in a way that they harm others without intending to or something?

Personally, I think a stupid and incompetent villain can often be very entertaining -and not just for laughs.

Regarding the OP: IMO, what makes a good villain is that the villain entertains, either through being a deep, complex character with believable motivations or being just so utterly over the top that it becomes hilarious. See Xykon from OotS for an example of the latter. Funny, charming, easily distracted... and utterly depraved, openly stating that morals and standards are for pussies.

In movies and TV shows a lot of it depends on the actor's performance in contrast to the actor playing the hero. You can get away with bland heroes if the villains are written and performed well enough, but not the other way around. A villain should also abide by what I call The Balance Of Ham.